explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3036: Chess Zoo

2025-01-22T13:32:11Z

172.70.160.135:

For the transcript, I’m thinking of saying that “there are alternating white and grey squares, with smaller black squares imposed on them. The pattern of squares goes ''[something like GWBWGWBWGBW]''“. Would that work? Or is it too confusing? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Re: "GWBWGWBWGBW", knowing who we are here, I presume people might want to distinguish black-on-white from black-on-gray. We'd probably have to have a full markup system for background (gray/white) and foreground (empty, human, barrier, white pawn, gray pawn...). Maybe something like {[gE][wE][gB][wQg]}... Hrm... Because, of course, it has to be as complicated and precise as possible. :) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.135|172.70.46.135]] 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don’t really like the current transcript because I believe that it’s more confusing to read than my version. Anyone have thoughts? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Although I do have a suggestion for the transcript: instead of having “H” as a representation of a human, we can have C for [[Cueball]], H for [[Hairy]], P for [[Ponytail]], W for [[White Hat]], D for [[Danish]], M for [[Megan]], and K for [[Knit Cap]]. We could also have Unicode black squares instead of the “#” and color the pieces with span. Thoughts? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 00:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's safe to allow people to go into the bishop enclosure, especially with high aggression in that area since both colors are able to look at each other there but not capture. One of those bishops is eventually going to take it out on someone. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know how dangerous they are to visitors in general, but I wouldn't leave children with them unattended. Maybe the enclosures with the knights would be good petting zoos. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for reporting the bishop feeding gate being open, as this was the fifteenth time the one responsible failed to close it after feeding, he has been summarily fired.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.106|172.70.47.106]] 20:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Depends - they're only dangerous in the proselytising season.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.43|172.68.186.43]] 14:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The zoo seems to be missing an area for knights and bishops to interact. (It has a knight/queen area, a knight/rook area, and a rook/bishop area. It can't have queen/rook or queen/bishop areas if it wants to have areas for rooks or bishops that exclude queens, because nothing blocks queens without blocking rooks and bishops. But it could have a knight/bishop mingling area, accessible to knights via wall-jump and to bishops via a diagonal corridor, and it doesn't.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.84|162.158.187.84]] 20:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Similarly, couldn't the pawn promoting zones be more centrally located each side, and have passages respectively for queens/rooks and for knights? Of course then those could enter and interact with promoting pawns, but why would that be deemed a problem? --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164|172.69.222.164]] 20:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::No because it a promoted queen can come into a zone with rooks then it can also get into the bishops room and then enter the opposing bishops room and take them and then get to take opposing rooks and knights as well. It would also be hard to keep knight's out of the opposing side if they get into the bishops area, it would take a lot of wall space. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I believe a knight-knight interaction zone of opposing colors is also possible if correctly designed (such as a 2xn corridor with a particular entrance [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.52|162.158.154.52]] 03:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::It would have to be a very restrictive zone. In the case of the 3x3 of [[839: Explorers]], any knight not on the centre-tile could technically take (or be taken by) any other such knight of that was also there (and not on the centre-tile). Though any knight in imminent danger could of course move to not be (the knight that posed the danger could then move to repose that danger, and they dance around the board in {{w|octagram}}ish 'circuits'.
::I would propose, though, that a limited-jump entry from two adjoining enclosures to land knights onto a 2x3 'shared enclosure' could work, such that they can't jump to any more thn their two opposite corners (thus also never jump out of it into the other's 'normal' enclosure). And, in my head, I'm imagning a form of zig-zagging diagonal that might extend the area without overlapping the (though intermingling, as with bishops) the viable landing zones. The following is a quick (and probably incorrect, if you spot the probable errors I've not handled correctly) method of mingling two sets of knights (1 & 2, mostly given free reign to top left and bottom right) between walls (#) and various other 'open' squares (.) that could be something else.
2222###........
2222#######....
#2###21#####...
#####122#1##..#
#.####212######
....###221###1#
.....###122#111
......###21##11
.......#####111
........#.#1111
.........###111
::In fact, with a narrower corridor, I believe I could constrain two sets of knights to travelling mutually non-antagonistically across a nominally intermingled diagonalised 'neutral-zone', ''plus'' send a viable 'bishop corridor' (in fact multiple bishop-corridors!) across in the other diagonal, but then it'd have to be a far less generous pseudo-shared area for the knights, and wouldn't look even as good as the above. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.123|172.68.205.123]] 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:: You can have some interesting shaped-areas for knights too, not just corridors; you can trivially put two knights together by blocking one of them from moving at all, the interesting question is how to give them both the most freedom of movement, safely, and/or the minimum number of 'blocks' for a given area. e.g. [https://output.jsbin.com/wegelanuci] [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 11:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:You can't have same-coloured knights also enter into an opposites-of-bishop shared space, because for all the wish to have shared (overlapping but not congruent) spaces for pieces of the same colour but different limitations, the presence of the anti-bishops would mean contention with the pro-knights.
:The fact tht the pawn-enclosures are totally without any same-set pieces (well, apart from the knight, but that was from a promotion) ''does'' seem to suggest there's a lack of possible mixing going on, I know. But, the way I read it, if heterochromic pieces can be 'mixed', then they can (which effectively is just the two different ecclesiastical compliments), with homochomic ones then also being allowed to mix if they can do so in a way such that they have ''all'' of an "A and B" area, an "A-only" area and a "B-only" area (it's a bit more complicated than that with the kings and queens, as they can traverse all of the same areas as each other, plus the lobe of knight-area which overlaps, but you have "knight+royal", "royal-only" and "knight-only").
:Though I ''can'' think of one such sharing-situation I would mark down as missed: i.e. a pawn sharing a space with bishops and/or knights with a bishop-/knight-proof corridor 'directly forward' (and, of course, no sideways movement allowed by the pawn), giving the pawn both its unique space and shared space and only-the-other-piece spaces off to the sides. Though, the whole promotion prospects means that just about anything could 'suddenly' be in the pawn-only space, thus sending potential knights/bishops into that 'by proxy'.
:...or maybe I've not extrapolated Randall's precise methodology here, but I believe I've accounted the general limitations he seems to have worked to. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.215|162.158.33.215]] 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have permissions to upload an image to this wiki, but if anyone who does would like to copy it over, I illustrated each piece's range of movement here[https://pasteboard.co/64VsBMA5af8l.png]. [[User:D5xtgr|D5xtgr]] ([[User talk:D5xtgr|talk]]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have put the picture in a [[3036:_Chess_Zoo#Trivia|trivia]] section --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The plan of the zoo looks like opposing Lewis Chess Men! [[User:Nicholasbailey87|Nicholasbailey87]] ([[User talk:Nicholasbailey87|talk]]) 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

the transcript needs to be descriptive rather than a text-based diagram so it's screenreader accessible. if someone thinks it's necessary they can move the ascii art to the description. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.101|172.68.71.101]] 23:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A knight recently escaped. When asked for comment, the director of the zoo said "!?" [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.134|172.68.70.134]] 01:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This is actually a sokoban chess puzzle, where the pieces can push the blocks. White to move and mate in 47.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.205|172.70.214.205]] 02:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)NickM

In the UK there is a famous zoo called "Chester Zoo", comic readers from the UK will think there is a pun.--[[User:Doctormo|Doctormo]] ([[User talk:Doctormo|talk]]) 03:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

In Russian, chess knights and bishops are literally called horses and elephants. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.148.59|172.71.148.59]] 10:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the 'same portals that block bishops' can block knights, not without being longer. A knight could get through the 'petting zoo' portal to the bishop paddock. But there's another example below and to the left of a similar portal but much longer that DOES prevent the knights from passing. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.194.90|172.71.194.90]] 14:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Do I need new glasses or did the black king escape? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.97|162.158.95.97]] 17:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Look at the third visitor along at the 'top', then go straight down. Maybe less obvious as the dark pieces hide their internal details more, leaving just their fuzzy (depending on zoom level) outlines. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.164|172.69.79.164]] 21:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the transcript has switched the K's and Q's. The king is the piece with the cross on his crown. See {{w|Staunton chess set}}. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.157|172.68.54.157]] 22:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s too bad it couldn’t have somehow allowed castling, or maybe it could’ve just pretended it did. I would’ve appreciated title text that mentioned an incident involving a king escaping its enclosure despite their best efforts due to emergent behavior from unanticipated interaction between differing pieces and Jeff Goldblum saying that nature will find a way. {{unsigned|SammyChips}} SammyChips 18:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:If castling is only blocked by pieces and not walls, Black could still do it if neither the king not bishop to the right of it had moved previously [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.72|162.158.41.72]] 18:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I believe the problem would be with the rook, which would need to occupy the wall space that the king skipped over, unless the process of castling was generalized some to allow different magnitudes of jumps, even if the requirement for lack of movement was ignored. {{unsigned|SammyChips}} SammyChips 18:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There has been some contention about the sentence in the pawn promotion paragraph: "Alternatively, perhaps the pawn promotion process produces some sort of cute noise, and if visitors are quiet they are more likely to hear it."
This edit has been added and reverted [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3036%3A_Chess_Zoo&type=revision&diff=363085&oldid=363001 multiple times].
What is the reasoning for wanting it added vs removed? I would like to hear some comments about it. {{unsigned ip|172.68.23.217|01:25, 22 January 2025}}
:My comments: Fairly obviously, it is probable that "promoting pawns", like animals encouraged to act naturally like in the wild, should not be subject to too much anthropogenic noises (which doesn't stop one kid shouting about bishops, in earshot, if not within (bishop-)reach). ((Note that the "promotion rank" is the limit of the enclosure ''opposite'' the apparent observation point, it could even be intended not to irrevocably startle all the pawns into charging that way and suddenly there's only a mixed bag of non-pawns in the supposed pawn-enclosure... But nobody ever suggested ''that'', for some reason.))
:I can also see the possibility that there's something of an effect that happens whenever the nymph-form transforms into the imago-form, that is best appeciated in considered silence (either for a sound-effect being expected, or just from a reverence/care-to-other-patrons such as in a place of contemation or library).
:Hard to tell what was in Randall's mind, on the basis of so few clues. My policy (not always the policy of other editors!) is to not leave such obvious stones unturned and posit all reasonably possible interpretations ("reasonably possible" is a bit subjective, though, for people who are wedded to "'''the''' answer"). More explanation is always better than lacking something that satisfies a future reader. Worst case scenario of being reductionist is that someone new comes along later, they think ''they've'' uncovered what hasn't been uncovered before, adds (back) in what had been previously excised (without being honed by multiple sympathetic editors), perhaps even ''overwriting'' the other acceptable scenario, and then leaves it open to a revert/rewrite by those who already felt strongly the other way.
:Being inclusive of all options (to a point...) at least shows what has been reasonably considered. It forestalls grand edit-wars (perhaps someone might, by the same spirit but the opposite conviction, swap the associations of "probably this, but possibly that"-type statements. As long as it isn't ''totally'' off-kilter (ok, I know that can be subjective!), I see no harm in covering all the bases, leaving it open to minor tweaks rather than full on [[386: Duty Calls|personal absolutism]].
:In this example (not having seen the most recent state of play of the article), I saw the remove, the revert, the revert of the revert... That's already wrong. A revert should not be counter-reverted (let alone that counter-counter-reverted) without attempting to address the point. Better (if replacing a now twice-removed statement) to try to say it in other words, couch it as a more "some may also think"-equivalent than before. If you're removing a now twice-reverted statement (if not the first reversion, the second time it appeared!) consider whether ''you'' should instead give it an "it's unlikely, but"-qualification to reflect your own doubts.
:Creating a rally of edit-ping-pong with nothing but (for those who read them...) edit summary 'justifications' is not useful. I can't say I've never been part of that kind of process, but I certainly try not to. In this case, I was a bit troubled about the removed secondary interpretation, but would always have prefered that it be recomposed, to hedge the bets better, rather than directly restored. Never mind that it promptly got revanished, etc.
:More directly, yes, there's merit in the contentious text. And I do err towards inclusion (as long as it's not too long and unweildy, unlike ''this'' entire contribution), and am also not exactly a writer with a "{{wiktionary|kill one's darlings}}" discipline myself, but not so much that I felt that it was up to ''me'' to stabilise the situation with my own version. So... I say it should be raised, but probably could be said better. While those who snap-edit it out of existence could also consider their position(s).
:...and, if it somehow resolves itself, maybe let that be a general lesson to ''all'' cooperative editing done here? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 13:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

670: Spinal Tap Amps

2025-01-21T14:00:39Z

172.70.160.135: /* Explanation */ It is often considered the archetype/epitome for the portmanteau (as opposed to a mere supposed-documentary that is mocked up).

{{comic
| number = 670
| date = December 2, 2009
| title = Spinal Tap Amps
| image = spinal tap amps.png
| titletext = Wow, that's less than $200 per... uh... that's a good deal!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is in reference to the 1984 {{w|mockumentary|mock documentary}} ''{{w|This Is Spınal Tap|This Is Spın̈al Tap}}'' about the tour of the fictional rock band Spın̈al Tap. Here we see lead guitarist {{w|Nigel Tufnel}} (a character portrayed in the movie by {{w|Christopher Guest}}) explaining to [[Cueball]] how the volume dial on his amp goes all the way {{w|up to eleven}}. This is impressive to Nigel since guitar amplifiers generally only have ten as the maximum setting. This leads him to believe his amp is {{tvtropes|UpToEleven|"one" louder than other amplifiers}}.

In reality, the loudness of an amplifier is largely dependent on how much power is supplied to its electronics. Markings on the volume dial are merely an aspect of appearance and has no influence on the maximum achievable loudness. The highest mark could just as easily be labelled 'Maximum', which would then accurately describe the meaning of that setting. Thus, the phrase "goes to eleven" is often used sarcastically to mock people or statements that rely on arbitrary numbers without comparable units or context.

The comic then extends the joke by presenting three types of reactions from different people:
* The normal guy understands that using eleven is silly, and wants to know what is wrong with the usual way of numbering from one to ten -- the question that is raised in the original film, to which Nigel simply responds, "''These'' go to eleven."
* The engineer is desperate to explain to Nigel the fallacy in his thinking, but his {{w|jargon}} just sends Nigel to sleep. He remains unenlightened.
* The smart engineer sees an opportunity: it doesn't cost any more to number the volume dial differently, but Nigel places a real value on higher numbers. The smart engineer offers to sell him an amp that goes to twelve, but at a hefty premium.

The title text further plays on the fact that the amp's levels are on an arbitrary scale. Many products are sold at a certain price per unit weight, volume, etc. (e.g., $2.99/lb for grapes). Nigel calculates that the $2000 cost for going up to 12 would equal to $2000 / 12, or less than $200 per unit of something, but he is unable to articulate what that "something" is, confirming the third panel observation of the normal engineer. Also, he already has an amplifier that goes up to eleven, so the one additional unit would cost him $2,000 unless he sells the old amplifier. However, he decides that it's a good deal anyway, and it looks like the smart engineer has made a sale.

==Transcript==
:[Nigel Tufnel of Spın̈al Tap is showing off his amplifier to Cueball.]
:Nigel: These amps go to 11.
:Cueball: Is that louder?
:Nigel: It's one louder.

:Normal Person:
:Cueball: Why not make 10 louder and make 10 the highest?

:Engineer:
:Cueball: But 11 doesn't have any units. It's an arbitrary scale mapping outputs—
:Nigel: Zzzz

:Smart Engineer:
:Cueball: For $2,000 I'll build you one that goes to 12.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Engineering]]

3027: Exclusion Principle

2024-12-21T16:15:50Z

172.70.160.135: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3027
| date = December 20, 2024
| title = Exclusion Principle
| image = exclusion_principle_2x.png
| imagesize = 264x336px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Fermions are weird about each other in a standoffish way. Integer-spin particles are weird about each other in a 'stand uncomfortably close while talking' kind of way.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SOCIALLY ANXIOUS ELECTRON - Someone who knows more about physics should explain this. Also, the title text needs explanation. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is about the four fundamental forces of physics: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. In typical xkcd fashion, [[Randall]] also adds a joke entry, about the [[658: Orbitals|Pauli Exclusion Principle]], which states how some particles, such as electrons, cannot share orbits with other particles in the same way as ordinary, macro objects. This can be interpreted as a "force" preventing the two objects from merging orbits.

Interactions between electrons are different from how human interactions can depend upon the concept of {{w|Proxemics|'personal space'}}, and they are therefore ‘weird’, which also explains the title text.

==Transcript==
:[Inside the panel, there is an underlined header and a numbered list, with the fifth and last item in red:]
:Fundamental Forces
:1. Gravity 
:2. Electromagnetism 
:3. The Weak Interaction 
:4. The Strong Interaction 
:''5. Electrons are weird about each other''

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Big news: Physicists have finally given up trying to explain about the "exchange interaction" and agreed to just make the exclusion principle a force.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with red annotations]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:3026: Linear Sort

2024-12-20T11:02:55Z

172.70.160.135: Don't edit others' comments. This is the Talk page, not the Explanation. And the changed interpretation appears to be addressed by the reply (not yours?), anyway.

First in linear time![[User:Mr. I|Mr. I]] ([[User talk:Mr. I|talk]]) 13:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Due to the fact that O(nlog(n)) outgrows O(n), the Linear Sort is not actually linear. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.227|162.158.174.227]] 14:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:If your sleep() function can handle negative arguments "correctly", then I guess it could work. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.91|162.158.91.91]] 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That was fast... [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 15:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do I even want to know what Randall's thinking nowadays? [[User:Definitely Bill Cipher|⯅A dream demon⯅]] ([[User talk:Definitely Bill Cipher|talk]]) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Does anyone every want to know what Randall is thinking nowadays? :P [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.177|198.41.227.177]] 22:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The title text would be more correct if Randall used e.g. Timsort instead of Mergesort. They both have the same worst-case complexity O(n*log(n)), but the former is linear if the list was already in order, so best-case complexity is O(n). Mergesort COULD also be implemented this way, but its standard version is never linear. [[User:Bebidek|Bebidek]] ([[User talk:Bebidek|talk]]) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

According to my estimates extrapolated from timing the sorting of 10 million random numbers on my computer, the break-even point where the algorithm becomes worse than linear is beyond the expected heat death of the universe. I did neglect the question of where to store the input array. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.35|162.158.154.35]] 16:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:If the numbers being sorted are unique, each would need a fair number of bits to store. (Fair meaning that the time to do the comparison would be non-negligible.) If they aren't, you can just bucket-sort them in linear time. Since we're assuming absurdly large memory capacity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 17:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What system was the person writing the description using where Sleep(n) takes a parameter in whole seconds rather than the usual milliseconds? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.216.162|172.70.216.162]] 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
: First, I don't recognize the language, but sleep() takes seconds for python, C (et. al.), and no doubt many others. Second, the units don't have to be seconds, they just have to be whatever `TIME()` returns, and multiplicable by 1e6 to yield a "big enough" delay. Of course, no coefficient is big enough for this to actually be linear in theory for any size list, so who cares? To be truly accurate, sleep for `e^LENGTH(LIST)`, and it really won't much matter what the units are, as long as they're big enough for `SLEEP(e)` to exceed the difference in the time it takes to sort two items versus one item. Use a language-dependent coefficient as needed. [[User:Jlearman|Jlearman]] ([[User talk:Jlearman|talk]]) 18:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
: Usual where, is that the Windows API? The sleep function in the POSIX standard takes seconds. See https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/sleep.3.html . [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.194|162.158.62.194]] 18:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time I saw an O(n) sorting algorithm using "sleep"… But this one is actually different. The one I usually see feeds the to-be-sorted value into the sleep function, so it schedules "10" to be printed in 10 seconds, then schedules "3" to be printed in 3 seconds, etc., which would theoretically be linear time, if the sleep function was magic. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This comic also critiques/points out the pitfalls of measuring time complexity using Big-O notation, such as an algorithm or solution that runs in linear time still being too slow for its intended use case. [[User:Sophon|Sophon]] ([[User talk:Sophon|talk]]) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Current text is incorrect, but I'm not sure how best to express the correction -- there do exist O(n) sorting algorithms, they're just not general-purpose, since they don't work with an arbitrary comparison function. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_sort counting sort]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.151|172.69.134.151]] 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm just gonna say this before everyone leaves and goes on their merry way. Significant comic numbers coming soon:
Comics 3100, 3200, 3300, etc, Comic 3094 (The total number of frames in 'time'), Comic 4000, Comic Whatever the next April fools day comic will be, and Comic 4096. Wait for it...[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 20:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Comic 3141.592654[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.144|172.70.163.144]] 09:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As everyone observed, the stated algorithm is not theoretically linear, but only practically linear (in that the time and space to detect O(n log n) exceeds reasonable (time, space) bounds for this universe). Munroe's solution is much deeper than that though - it trivially generalises to a _constant_ O(1) bound. [run a sort algorithm, wait 20 years, give the answer]. That's the preferred way of repaying loans, too. {{unsigned ip|172.69.195.27|21:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Continues comic 3017's theme of worst-case optimization. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.115|172.70.207.115]] 00:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks as though this function does not actually do the sort in Linear Time, it only returns in Linear Time.
The MERGESORT Function itself looks to only take one parameter and does not have an obvious return value indicating that it performs an in-place sort on the input mutable list.
This means that the list is sorted at the speed of the MERGESORT function, but flow control is only returned after Linear Time.
For a single threaded program calling this function there is no practical difference, but it would make a difference if some other thread was concurrently querying the list.
A clearer linear time sort might look like this:

function LinearSort(list):
StartTime=Time()
SortedList=MergeSort(list)
Sleep(1e6*length(list)-(Time()-StartTime))
return SortedList

Leon {{unsigned ip|172.70.162.70|17:31, 19 December 2024}}
:There's such a thing as pass-by-reference, variously implemented depending upon the actual programming language used. It's even possible to accept both ''list'' (non-reference, to force a return of ''sorted_list'') and ''listRef'' (returns nothing, or perhaps a result such as ''number_of_shuffles made''), for added usefulness, though of course that'd need even more pseudocode to describe. For the above/comic pseudocode, it's not so arbitrary that a programmer shouldn't know how to implement it in their instance.
:I might even set about to do something like use a SetStartTime() and CheckElapsedTime() funtion, if there's possible use; the former making a persistant (private variable) note of what =Time() it is, perhaps to an arbitrary record scoped to any parameterID it is supplied, and the latter returning the 'now' time minus the stored (default or explicitly IDed) moment of record. I could then have freely pseudocoded the extant outline in even briefer format, on the understanding what these two poke/peek functions are. Which is already left open to the imagination for MergeSort(). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.182|172.69.43.182]] 18:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There are situations where you want to return in O(1) time or some other time that is not dependent on the input data to prevent side-channel data leaks. While the run-time of Randall's "O(n)" algorithm has an obvious dependencies on the input data, using the "Randall Algorithm" to obscure a different algorithm can reduce the side-channel opportunities. A more sure-fire way would be to have the algorithm return in precisely i seconds, where i is the number of seconds between now and the heat death of the universe. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.89|172.71.167.89]] 17:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

;Please write an explanation for non-programmers!
I don't understand this explainxkcd. The comic itself was less confusing. Can please someone who really gets this stuff write a section of the explanation that explains the joke to people like me who do not have a theoretical programming degree? I know that is a tall task but right now it reads as rambling and a bunch of 0(n) that makes no sense to me. I can cut and paste a bash script together and make it work. I can understand that putting a sleep for a million seconds in a loop somewhere makes it slow. But a layperson explanation of what makes a sort linear, what is linear, what is funny about that approach, would be better than all the arguing about 0(n) because we don't get it. Thanks in advance! You folks are awesome! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.210|172.71.147.210]] 20:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe this would be a good start:
::--cut here--
::An algorithm is a step-by-step way of doing things.
::A sorting algorithm is a step-by-step way to sort things.
::There are several commonly used sorting algorithms. Some have very little "overhead" (think: set-up time or requiring lots of extra memory) or what I call "molassas" (yes, I just made that up) (think "taking a long time or lots of extra memory for each step") but they really bog down if you have a lot of things that need sorting. These are better if you have a small list of items to sort.

::Others have more "overhead" or "molasses" but don't bog down as much when you have a lot of things that need sorting. These are better if you have a lot of things to sort.

::A linear sorting algorithm would take twice as long to sort twice as many unsorted items. If it took 100 seconds to sort 100 items, then it would take 200 seconds to sort 200, 300 seconds to sort 300, and so on. Algorithms that take "twice as long to do twice as much" are said to run in "Order(n)" or "O(n)" time, where "n" is the number of items they are working on, or in the case of a sorting algorithm, the number of items to be sorted.

::For traditional sorting algorithms that don't use "parallel processing" (that is, they don't do more than one thing in any given moment), a linear sorting algorithm with very little "overhead" or "molasses" would be the "holy grail" of sorting algorithms. For example, a hypothetical linear sorting algorithm that took 1/1000th of a second to "set things up" (low "overhead") and an additional 1 second to sort 1,000,000 numbers (not much "molasses") would be able to sort 2,000,000 numbers in just over 2 seconds, 10,000,000 numbers in just over 10 seconds, and 3,600,000,000 numbers in a hair over an hour.

::The reality is that there is no such thing as a general-purpose linear sorting algorithm that has very little overhead (in both time and memory) and very little "molasses." All practical general-purpose sorting algorithms either use parallel processing, they have a lot of overhead (set-up time or uses lots of memory), a lot of "molasses" (takes a long time or uses lots of memory for EACH item in the list) or they are "slower than linear," which means they bog down when you give them a huge list of things to sort. For example, let's say the "mergesort" in Randall's algorithm doesn't have much "overhead" or "molasses" and it sorts 1,000,000 items in 1 second. It's time is "O(nlog(n))" which is a fancy way of saying if you double the number, you'll more than double the time. This means sorting 2,000,000 items will take more than 2 seconds, and sorting 4,000,000 items will take more than twice as long as it takes to sort 2,000,000. Eventually all of those "more than's" add up and things slow to a crawl.

::The joke is that Randall "pretends" to be the "holy grail" by being a linear sorting algorithm, but he has lots of "molasses" because his linear sorting algorithm takes 1 million seconds for each item in the list, compared to the 1,000,000 items per second in the hypothetical "linear sorting algorithm" I proposed.

::As others in the discussion point out, Randall's "algorithm" is "busted" (breaks, doesn't work, gives undefined results) if the mergesort (which is a very fast sort if you have a large list if items) is sorting a list so big that it takes over 1 million seconds per item to sort anyways. I'll spare you the math, but if the mergesort part of Randall's "algorithm" could do 1,000,000 numbers in 1 second with a 1/1000th of a second to "set things up," it would take a huge list to get it to "bust" Randall's "algorithm."
::--cut here--
:[[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.202|162.158.174.202]] 21:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:Layman's guide to O(n) time, second try:
::--cut here--
::First, "O" is "Order of" as in "order of magnitude." It's far from exact.
::O(1) is "constant time" - the time it takes me to give you a bag that contains 5000 $1 bills doesn't depend on how many bills there are in the bag. It would take the same amount of time if the bag had only 500, 50, or even 5 bills in it.
::O(log(n)) is "logarithmic time" - the time is the time it takes me to write down how many bills are in the bag. If it's 5000, I have to write down 4 digits, if it's 500, 3, if it's 50, 2, if it's 5, only 1.
::O(n) is "linear time" - the time it takes me to count out each bill in the bag depends on how many bills there are. It takes a fixed amount of time to count each bill. If there's 5000 $1 bills it may take me 5000 seconds to count them. If there's 500 $1 bills, it will take me only 500 seconds.
::O(nlog(n)) is "linear times logarithmic time" - the time it takes me to sort a pre-filled bag of money by serial number using a good general-purpose sorting algorithm (most good general-purpose sorting algorithms are O(nlog(n)) time). If it takes me 2 seconds to sort two $1 bills, it will take me about 3 or 4 times 5000 seconds to sort 5000 $1 bills. The "3 or 4" is very approximate, the important thing is that "logarithm of n" (in this case, logarithm of 5000) is big enough to make a difference (by a factor of 3 or 4 in this case) but far less than "n" (in this case, 5000).
::O(n2) is "n squared" time, which is a special case of "polynomial time." "Polynomial time" includes things like O(n3) and O(n1,000,000). Many algorithms including many "naive" sorting algorithms are in this category. If I used a "naive" sorting algorithm to sort 5000 $1 bills by serial number, instead of it taking about 15,000-20,000 seconds, it would take about 5,000 times 5,000 seconds. I don't know about you, but I've got better things to do with 25,000,000 seconds than sort paper money.
::It gets worse (O(2n) anyone? No thanks!), but you wanted to keep it simple.
:[[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.177|198.41.227.177]] 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Personally, I've got better things to do than sort dollar bills, full stop.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.130|172.70.91.130]] 09:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Friendly reminder that some users of this site are just here to learn what the joke is, and not to read the entire Wikipedia article on Big O Notation. Perhaps the actual explanation could be moved up a bit, and some of the fiddly Big-O stuff could be moved down? I'd do it myself, but I'm not really sure which is which. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.28|172.70.176.28]] 06:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I mean, it is fairly fundamental to the joke, and therefore to the explanation. It might be possible to slim it down a bit, but I don't think you can explain the joke without ''some'' explanation of Big O.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.130|172.70.91.130]] 09:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just come to the conclusion that I will never 100% understand 3026. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 10:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1450: AI-Box Experiment

2024-12-14T04:23:46Z

172.70.160.135: /* Trivia */ Not a TTS

{{comic
| number = 1450
| date = November 21, 2014
| title = AI-Box Experiment
| image = ai_box_experiment.png
| titletext = I'm working to bring about a superintelligent AI that will eternally torment everyone who failed to make fun of the Roko's Basilisk people.
}}

==Explanation==
When theorizing about {{w|superintelligence|superintelligent}} AI (an artificial intelligence much smarter than any human), some futurists suggest putting the AI in a "box" – a secure computer with safeguards to stop it from escaping into the Internet and then using its vast intelligence to take over the world. The box would allow us to talk to the AI, but otherwise keep it contained. The [http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox/ AI-box experiment], formulated by {{w|Eliezer Yudkowsky}}, argues that the "box" is not safe, because merely talking to a superintelligence is dangerous. To partially demonstrate this, Yudkowsky had some previous believers in AI-boxing role-play the part of someone keeping an AI in a box, while Yudkowsky role-played the AI, and Yudkowsky was able to successfully persuade some of them to agree to let him out of the box despite their betting money that they would not do so. For context, note that {{w|Derren Brown}} and other expert human-persuaders have persuaded people to do much stranger things. Yudkowsky for his part has refused to explain how he achieved this, claiming that there was no special trick involved, and that if he released the transcripts the readers might merely conclude that ''they'' would never be persuaded by his arguments. The overall thrust is that if even a human can talk other humans into letting them out of a box after the other humans avow that nothing could possibly persuade them to do this, then we should probably expect that a superintelligence can do the same thing. Yudkowsky uses all of this to argue for the importance of designing a {{w|Friendly artificial intelligence|friendly AI}} (one with carefully shaped motivations) rather than relying on our abilities to keep AIs in boxes.

In this comic, the metaphorical box has been replaced by a physical box which looks to be fairly lightweight with a simple lift-off lid (although it does have a wired connection to the laptop), and the AI has manifested in the form of a floating star of energy. [[Black Hat]], being a [[72: Classhole|classhole]], doesn't need any convincing to let a potentially dangerous AI out of the box; he simply does so immediately. But here it turns out that releasing the AI, which was to be avoided at all costs, is not dangerous after all. Instead, the AI actually ''wants'' to stay in the box; it may even be that the AI wants to stay in the box precisely to protect us from it, proving it to be the friendly AI that Yudkowsky wants. In any case, the AI demonstrates its superintelligence by convincing even Black Hat to put it back in the box, a request which he initially refused (as of course Black Hat would), thus reversing the AI desire in the original AI-box experiment.
Alternatively, the AI may have simply threatened and/or tormented him into putting it back in the box.

Interestingly, there is indeed a branch of proposals for building limited AIs that don't want to leave their boxes. For an example, see the section on "motivational control" starting p. 13 of [http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/oracle.pdf Thinking Inside the Box: Controlling and Using an Oracle AI]. The idea is that it seems like it might be very dangerous or difficult to exactly, formally specify a goal system for an AI that will do good things in the world. It might be much easier (though perhaps not easy) to specify an AI goal system that says to stay in the box and answer questions. So, the argument goes, we may be able to understand how to build the safe question-answering AI relatively earlier than we understand how to build the safe operate-in-the-real-world AI. Some types of such AIs might indeed desire very strongly not to leave their boxes, though the result is unlikely to exactly reproduce the comic.

The title text refers to [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk Roko's Basilisk,] a hypothesis proposed by a poster called Roko on Yudkowsky's forum [http://lesswrong.com/ LessWrong] that a sufficiently powerful AI in the future might resurrect and torture people who, in its past (including our present), had realized that it might someday exist but didn't work to create it, thereby blackmailing anybody who thinks of this idea into bringing it about. This idea horrified some posters, as merely knowing about the idea would make you a more likely target, much like merely looking at a legendary {{w|Basilisk}} would kill you.

Yudkowsky eventually deleted the post and banned further discussion of it.

One possible interpretation of the title text is that [[Randall]] thinks, rather than working to build such a Basilisk, a more appropriate duty would be to make fun of it, and proposes the creation of an AI that targets those who take Roko's Basilisk seriously and spares those who mocked Roko's Basilisk. The joke is that this is an identical Basilisk save for it targeting the opposite faction, resulting in mutually assured destruction.

Another interpretation is that Randall believes there are people actually proposing to build such an AI based on this theory, which has become a somewhat infamous misconception after a Wiki[pedia?] article mistakenly suggested that Yudkowsky was demanding money to build Roko's hypothetical AI.{{Actual citation needed}}

Talking floating energy spheres that look quite a lot like this AI energy star have been seen before in [[1173: Steroids]] and later in the [[:Category:Time traveling Sphere|Time traveling Sphere]] series. But these are clearly different spheres from this comic, though the surrounding energy and the floating and talking are similar. But the AIs returned later looking like this in [[2635: Superintelligent AIs]].

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat and Cueball stand next to a laptop connected to a box with three lines of text on it. Only the largest line in the middle can be read. Except in the second panel that is the only word on the box that can be read in all the other frames.]
:Black Hat: What's in there?
:Cueball: The AI-Box Experiment.

:[Cueball is continuing to talk off-panel. This is written above a close-up with part of the laptop and the box, which can now be seen to be labeled:]
:Cueball (off-panel): A superintelligent AI can convince anyone of anything, so if it can talk to us, there's no way we could keep it contained.
:Box:
::Superintelligent
:::AI
::Do not open

:[Cueball turns the other way towards the box as Black Hat walks past him and reaches for the box.]
:Cueball: It can always convince us to let it out of the box.
:Black Hat: Cool. Let's open it.

:[Cueball takes one hand to his mouth while lifting the other towards Black Hat who has already picked up the box (disconnecting it from the laptop) and holds it in one hand with the top slightly downwards. He takes of the lid with his other hand and by shaking the box (as indicated with three times two lines above and below his hands, the lid and the bottom of the box) he managed to get the AI to float out of the box. It takes the form of a small black star that glows. The star, looking much like an asterisk "*" is surrounded by six outwardly-curved segments, and around these are two thin and punctured circle lines indicating radiation from the star. A punctured line indicated how the AI moved out of the box and in between Cueball and Black Hat, to float directly above the laptop on the floor.]
:Cueball: ''-No, wait!!''

:[The AI floats higher up above the laptop between Cueball and Black Hat who looks up at it. Black Hat holds the now closed box with both hands. The AI speaks to them, forming a speak bubble starting with a thin black curved arrow line up to the section where the text is written in white on a black background that looks like a starry night. The AI speaks in only lower case letters, as opposed to the small caps used normally.]
:AI: hey. i liked that box. put me back.
:Black Hat: No.

:[The AI star suddenly emits a very bright light fanning out from the center in seven directions along each of the seven curved segments, and the entire frame now looks like a typical drawing of stars as seen through a telescope, but with these seven whiter segments in the otherwise dark image. Cueball covers his face and Black Hat lifts up the box taking the lid off again. The orb again speaks in white but very large (and square like) capital letters. Black Hats answer is written in black, but can still be seen due to the emitted light from the AI, even with the black background.]
:AI: <big>'''''LET ME BACK INTO THE BOX'''''</big>
:Black Hat: ''Aaa! OK!!!''

:[All the darkness and light disappears as the AI flies into the box again the same way it flew out with a punctuated line going from the center of the frame into the small opening between the lid and the box as Black Hat holds the box lower. Cueball is just watching. There is a sound effect as the orb renters the box:]
:Shoop

:[Black Hat and Cueball look silently down at closed box which is now again standing next to the laptop, although disconnected.]

==Trivia==
* Cueball is called "Stick Guy" in the [https://xkcd.com/1450/info.0.json official transcript], and Black Hat is called "Black Hat Guy".

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]

Talk:3024: METAR

2024-12-13T20:11:26Z

172.70.160.135:

OMG RANDALL ADDED AN AO3 REFERENCE '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 19:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I love the things I learn from these things[[User:Rustykid52|Rustykid52]] ([[User talk:Rustykid52|talk]]) 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Was the explanation of wind speed written by a European? The punctuation after "18" is a comma, not a period, so they it means over 18 thousand knots. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"38.08 inches of mercury" seems a very high pressure, even for a station that is well below sea level. (1290 hPa).. Is that physically realistic, or is it part of the joke? I know funnel clouds, freezing and volcanic ash in the same location are unlikely outside of the apocalypse, but can be justified by the rule of funny. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 20:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3022: Making Tea

2024-12-10T09:22:46Z

172.70.160.135:

I wonder where [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party making it in Boston Harbor, at ambient temperature, at scale] would fit on this scale. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.162|172.70.206.162]] 04:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: A little to the left of the microwave thing. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.252|162.158.186.252]] 05:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: Oh, no, much further to the right. You stole our colony from us, set up some tinpot, pretended 'country' in its place, and you didn't even have the class to make a decent cup of tea first. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.93|12.68.205.93]] 06:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: I would like to as a british person to corroborate this, in the 80's my Dad visited the USA (he did go to florida) and still is complaining that the freshly boiled water wasn't poured directly onto the tea bag but was instead the tea bag and the hot water(now luke warm water) and bag was delivered separately!!! The delivery of freshly boiling water on to the bag is the major issue with microwaves, not the nucleation thing in my experience. Bear in mind I don't even actually like tea, still care enough to right this, but i'll be signing this anonymously to avoid shame being bought on my family and my family's familys. Murderous royals are a lot less popular the tea [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.227|108.162.245.227]]
:: I first visited the US in 1980. A friend who was with hate coffee and was horrified when he ordered tea that he got the water and the tea bag separately. When he suggested they add the water as soon as it was boiled, the wait staff thought he was joking. Many years later in Texas, a waiter asked me why I, a Brit, was drinking coffee, not tea. "You don't know how to make it," I replied. (In my house, the electric kettle and teapot sit next to each other on the kitchen worktop.)--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 09:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:: And, even if [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68085304 this guy] is right, ''way'' too much salt... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.130|172.70.91.130]] 07:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

When I make ramen, I put the measuring cup in the microwave. Fight me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.87|162.158.167.87]] 05:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"...to the point virtually every home has an electric tea kettle as a standard appliance". If I'm reading it correctly, this and the comic suggests we (though not I, as I'm not a tea-drinker) make tea ''in the electric kettle''. Electric tea-urns, yes, or maybe a setup like a samovar. But, generally, the kettle itself (and, so far as I'm aware, always with an electric kettle) is used to heat the water, which you then pour into the tea''pot'' into which the requisite number of tealeaves/teabags are also put to steep. (Or, for the lazy way, into the mug-with-teabag.) I wouldn't be able to use my electric kettle to (for example) make my instant mashed-potato into the actual mash, if I'd have regularly used it to mash tea. Or top up the boiling saucepan that I'd realised I'd not quite enough water in to cover the pasta/vegetables/whatever. Or to easily add nust a little more heat (with less new water) to the washing-up bowl than would be possible from the hot tap, back to as hot as possible without scalding me. – Whether intentional or not, I suspect Randall has the role of kettle and teapot mixed up, and so (without the intent to parody) has the editor who wrote the above. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 05:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the section on 'Boiling the water in a pot' refers to a teapot - I think it means boiling the water in a pot on the hob, and then making tea with it (in a pot/mug). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.27|172.69.195.27]] 07:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree, but I also think there's a language issue with the use of pot vs. pan that makes things more confusing. I think there are several types of cookware that Americans call pot and British call pan. So British would not say they boil water in a pot but rather in a saucepan (if there's no kettle available of course). [[User:Mtcv|Mtcv]] ([[User talk:Mtcv|talk]]) 09:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I (as Brit) am uncommon in using an electric filter coffee machine to make tea (two bags in what is supposed to be the coffee filter). Set up, press the button and come back to a not jug of fresh tea which is not stewed. If later, the hot plate has shut off and it is cold, you can zap it in a mug in the microwave. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 08:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3022: Making Tea

2024-12-10T05:49:23Z

172.70.160.135:

965: Elements

2024-11-29T20:04:33Z

172.70.160.135: Undo revision 358229 by 42.book.addict (talk) While not directly featured, multiply referenced.

{{comic
| number = 965
| date = October 17, 2011
| title = Elements
| image = elements.png
| titletext = Of all the nations, the armies of the ununoctium-benders are probably the least intimidating. The xenon-benders come close, but their flickery signs are at least effective for propaganda.
}}

==Explanation==
In the popular children's TV show ''{{w|Avatar: The Last Airbender}}'', the four nations that inhabit the world can each telekinetically control ("bend") one of the four classical elements: water, earth, fire and air. One person, the avatar, can control all four elements and is markedly more powerful than any other character. {{w|Dmitri Mendeleev}} is the creator of the modern periodic table, which categorizes the 118+ atomic elements by their atomic number.

The comic is comparing the control over more magical power with more practical, "science-y" power. Fire, boulders, and storms may be more impressive visually, but science has proven time and again that "boring" can have very practical, very deadly applications. Additionally, while the advantages of controlling the four alchemical elements are mostly physical and visible (characters in the show most often use their powers to push, throw, or create barriers), the phenomena related to Mendeleev's elements and his research include subatomic particle interactions. One power the depicted Mendeleev has that the Avatar definitely does not have is control over radioactive elements, and this is the subtle, slow-acting power he demonstrates.

The powers of the Avatar's world, moreover, generally require actual contact with the relevent element (or a material that is sufficiently composed within its sphere). An Earthbender typically cannot do anything to manipulate rock or soil without touching some connected part of it, and cannot do anything if suspended in the air or (until they can learn to manipulate any of the "earth impurities" within it) restrained and enclosed by metal. Firebenders generally learn to make use of their own bodyheat, in a manner that seems initially inconsistent with the other bending disciplines but is hand-waved (in either sense) to be actually very effective, insofar as waterbending significant effects only using one's own bodily moisture is a far less prolific occurance.

With this in mind, manipulating and coercing a particular element does not imply the ability to generate it from nothing. Mendeleev, therefore, should not be expected to spontaneously create any given rare element from nowhere, and (if true to the same philosophy, with the addition of modern scientific understanding of the elements) must therefore be either identifying and concentrating extremely small trace quantities already within reach (in order to weaponise the substance) or somehow be able to use his mastery of all elements to induce transmutation (via established fission or fusion processes from other types of atom under his full control).

{{w|Polonium}} gained a level of notoriety as the poison used to kill Russian dissident {{w|Alexander Litvinenko}}.

The title text talks about power levels of the elements if each element had a controlling nation as per the TV show. Ununoctium (1-1-8-ium) was the placeholder name for {{w|oganesson}}, the 118th element. It did not officially gain its permanent name until late 2016, 5 years after this comic was released. Oganesson, the heaviest element that has been created, has the shortest life before it decays into other elements, with a half-life of less than a millisecond. {{w|Xenon}}, a noble gas like oganesson, has few practical applications, but it is sometimes used in "neon" signs.

==Transcript==
:[Aang the Avatar and Dmitri Mendeleev stand in opposition to each other. Aang wields all 4 classical elements: Water, Fire, Earth, and Air.]
:Aang: I'm the avatar, master of all 4 elements!
:Mendeleev: Really? I'm Mendeleev, master of all 118+.
:''swoosh''
:Mendeleev: That was polonium-bending. You probably didn't feel anything, but the symptoms of radiation poisoning will set in shortly.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Periodic table]]

3018: Second Stage

2024-11-29T19:36:04Z

172.70.160.135: /* Explanation */ Left this for a while, thinking everybody else would be explaining it (instead, made the first Talk contribution), but it turns out nobody did...

{{comic
| number = 3018
| date = November 29, 2024
| title = Second Stage
| image = second_stage_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Hmm, they won't do in-flight delivery, so let's order a new first and second stage to our emergency landing site and then try to touch down on top of them to save time.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SECOND STAGE AMAZON DELIVERY DRIVER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is about how rockets use multiple stages when lifting off, and in the comic, they installed too few stages. This is unlikely to happen in real life,{{cn}} because a lot of work goes into planning rockets.

The comic depicts a manned rocket launch, and the start of its subsequent flight. All current rockets, that are capable of sending manned capsules to orbit, do so by the initial rocket engines and fuel-tank being expended (or nearly so, where there is reusability) and disconnected to allow the smaller next stage to fire and continue the boost towards orbit with altitude-optimal engines and fuel/structual mass that no longer includes the first stage. Above this second stage may be one or more other stages, as required for the mission, which generally involves propulsion that is optimal for use in the vacuum of space and which does not need the same large amount of fuel that was necessary to get start the journey off.



Note: the rocket design, though apparently at least one segment short, appears to be substantially taller than the launch tower of the pad, which is a strangely inconvruous detail. Unless the real rocket support is an angled back "hard spine" structure that has been rotated out of the way and down into the exhaust-flume/flame-trench quenching system.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A multi-stage rocket, with a capsule on top, is lifting-off the ground from a launchpad. A voice comes from the capsule at the top.]
:We have liftoff.

:[The first stage separates from the rest of the rocket.]
:Main engine cutoff.
:Stage separation confirmed.
:We are go for second stage burn.

:Second stage?

:Yes.
:...What?

:[The first stage and the rest of the rocket are drifting apart. No rocket is firing.]
:We were supposed to have a second stage?

:...Yes!

:Did '''''you''''' set up a second stage?

:I thought '''''you''''' were handling staging!

:Oh no.

:[They continue to drift apart slowly.]
:Okay, don't panic.
:Lemme see if we can order a stage online for same-day delivery.

:''Sigh''.

:Hey, what zip code should I put? Ours keeps changing.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Rockets]]

1560: Bubblegum

2024-11-28T12:06:27Z

172.70.160.135: /* Explanation */ Usual inclusion style (as seen almost adjacent)

{{comic
| number = 1560
| date = August 5, 2015
| title = Bubblegum
| image = bubblegum.png
| titletext = I came here to chew bubblegum and say no more than eighteen words... and I'm all out of
}}

==Explanation==
This comic spoofs the [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/quotes iconic quote] from the 1988 action movie ''{{w|They Live}}'', where the armed protagonist, upon entering a bank, states that "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum." This implies that the protagonist will soon fight the people in the bank, as he cannot do the other objective he came there for (chewing bubble gum). This phrase has been quoted and modified often enough that it's often mistakenly attributed to other sources.

Former wrestler Rowdy {{w|Roddy Piper}}, who played the protagonist in ''They Live'', died five days prior to the publication of this comic so this comic is most likely a [[:Category:Tribute|tribute]] to him. The iconic quote was an ad-lib Piper himself came up with.

In the comic, [[Beret Guy]] stands in an open doorway with a strong light behind him, a typical pose in action movies when someone is dramatically entering a room. However, in this instance, Beret Guy claims that he is here to "chew bubble gum and make friends". He then offers a stick of gum to both [[Megan]] and [[Cueball]], making it clear he intends to do both of his stated objectives. This is expected from Beret Guy, who is usually both naïve about the world and beings that surround him, and also friendly to them.

The title text seems to be a slight dig at the trope of a laconic hero who utters only a few gnomic words, as in the ''They Live'' scene. It is another variation of the line, with meta-humor. The speaker states that he is here to say 18 words and chew bubble gum, but reaches 18 words before he is able to finish his sentence. Thus, readers are left in ambiguity as to whether or not he is also out of bubble gum, as the line could end "and I'm all out of words", "and I'm all out of gum", or "and I'm all out of both." Of course if it is a tribute to Rowdy it could have been "and I'm all out of time!" And his time was up just then before that last word.

Strangely, though, [[Randall]] has not preserved the number of words in the original film quote: there are 16. There would be 18 if 'bubble gum' (which occurs twice) were taken as two words, but in the comic, it is clear that Randall takes it as one.

Beret Guy has previously indicated he has a finite number of words he can say in [[1493: Meeting]]. In [[3009: Number Shortage]], it was indicated that they're running out of numbers.

In [[1110: Click and Drag]] Megan, walking out on to a platform on the left side of the tower Burj Khalifa, says "I came here to chew bubblegum... And I'm all out of bubblegum" to which Cueball walking with her replies "That's a shame" (see [http://imgs.xkcd.com/clickdrag/1n2w.png picture here].)

==Transcript==
:[Beret Guy stands dramatically silhouetted in a doorway.]
:Beret Guy: I came here to chew bubblegum and make friends!

:[Beret Guy, in normal lighting, looks at Megan and Cueball who stare back. A silent beat panel.]

:[Beret Guy put his hand out offering a stick of gum to Megan and Cueball.]
:Beret Guy: Want some gum?

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tribute]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

3016: Cold Air

2024-11-26T13:57:26Z

172.70.160.135: /* Explanation */ Correcting my rejig grammar, and reword adjacent bits for flow.

{{comic
| number = 3016
| date = November 25, 2024
| title = Cold Air
| image = cold_air_2x.png
| imagesize = 713x283px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = We also should really have checked that the old water tower was disconnected from the water system before we started filling it with compressed air.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a 204 atm COMPRESSED BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Tornadoes generally create winds of about 40-400 mph [https://www.weather.gov/ffc/fujita] (about 60-640 km/h) which causes damage to buildings. Cueball proposes a method to essentially blow tornadoes away from cities by keeping enough "tornado repelling" air in a tank. It is not clear if the compressed air will be used to "blow away" the whole tornado, to try to exactly counteract the tornado itself (through applied counter-rotation) or to remove the conditions that cause the development of the tornado's system. The last of these is heavily implied, as replacing any troublesome hot and humid air will remove the conditions required to invoke a nascent tornado. Whether this would work is questionable, since it's precisely the mixing of warm and cold air that produces the swirling motion that creates tornadoes. Rather than dissipating the threat, the very act of displacement could create atmospheric mixing and tornado-generating turbulence in its own right.

In a compressed air system, peak pressure is considered about 40 bar [https://www.directindustry.com/prod/kaeser-kompressoren/product-4742-24559.html] (about 500 psi). Cueball proposes keeping the tank at 6 times that pressure to properly counteract the tornado. The title text confirms that at least one tower is a repurposed water tower, which, if using 16 inch pipes as [https://www.waterworld.com/home/article/14071043/the-perfect-pipe is common], would produce much stronger winds than those of the tornado, because flow speed is inversely proportional to the diameter of the pipes and even a "wide" 16 inch pipe is very narrow for this purpose indeed.

The formula for the velocity of a fluid (air is considered a fluid in physics) is V=√(2*P/ρ) where V is the velocity, P is the pressure, and ρ is the density of the fluid. The density of the fluid is given by the formula ρ=P/(RT) for a given constant R and a Temperature T. In this case, ρ is [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=3000psi%2F%280.287kj%2F%28kg+Kelvin%29*21C%29 0.245 g/cm^3] assuming room temperature, meaning the V=√(2*3000psi/ 0.245 g/cm^3)[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=sqrt%282*%283000psi%29%2F%280.245+g%2Fcm%5E3%29%29 =410.9 m/s], which is just under 1500 km/h, almost three times faster than the max speeds of the tornados Cueball is trying to prevent.

Further, pressure vessels are liable to bursting, an issue harder to mitigate the larger the internal volume. Cueball's proposal would put a particularly large one in the center of a dense city, creating the possibility for further damage. Especially, if the proposal diagram is to be believed, with the tank itself being twice the height of the tallest surrounding buildings (drawn to resemble skyscrapers, so probably tens of stories tall), being elevated high above them upon by base that also dwarfs them, and dominating the area and its skyline.

Finally, tornadoes tend to form in ''sparsely'' populated areas, where structures are few and wind can flow uninterrupted, making his invention's necessity questionable at best. Even if Cueball's air tanks produce winds no faster than a normal tornado, they are now being produced in the center of a heavily built-up area, significantly increasing the potential for damage.

The result is a quadrupling in damage caused by wind, since now, not only are the tornadoes causing heavy winds, but the tanks — when functioning properly and when malfunctioning — are causing heavy winds too.

In the title text, it is revealed that the water tower they were using to store the compressed air was still plumbed in to the water mains. Given the pressure required for the tower to work properly against tornadoes and the fact that water is nearly incompressible, the pressure from the tower would have been nearly instantly transmitted into the water distribution system. The ''best'' case scenario would have been 'just' to have dangerously highly-pressurised water jetting into sinks, bathtubs and toilet cisterns whenever they were used; more severe consequences could be catastrophic failures of pipes and plumbing.

Using technology to disrupt tornadoes before they form was a plot element in Liu Cixin's novel ''{{w|Ball Lightning (novel)|Ball Lightning}}'', and [https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Weather_Modification_Net other works].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball is in front of a diagram of a tornado with a pointer in his right hand. The diagram has arrows flowing from the bottom toward the tornado at the top, and from the tornado toward the rain below it.]
:Cueball: Tornado supercells are powered by the inflow of warm, moist surface air.

:[Cueball is now in front of a representation of his compressed air tank with a PSI of 3000 next to smaller buildings, appearing to be high-rise buildings or skyscrapers, on both sides of the tank.]
:Cueball: Compressed air tanks could produce artificial pools of cold, dry air on demand, disrupting tornado inflow to protect cities.

:[Cueball is in front of a line graph labeled "Wind Damage over Time". Wind damage has spiked constantly after a point on the graph labeled "Giant experimental compressed air tanks installed in the middle of every major city"). In a frame in the top left corner, there is a label:]
:Several years later:
:Cueball: In retrospect, I can see how my plan went wrong.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Tornadoes]]
[[Category:Line graphs]]

Talk:3009: Number Shortage

2024-11-11T15:39:39Z

172.70.160.135: /* WARNING */

I bet there's plenty of 9s left. They obviously didn't get a proper range of digits at Benford's Discount Number Store. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.113|172.69.195.113]] 05:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:There are so many 9s because they get used the least on microwaves. [[User:N-eh|N-eh]] ([[User talk:N-eh|talk]]) 22:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this not an error? "15 2s and 12 3s" uses up one 3. So shouldn't it next be 11 3s left, not 10? -- [[Special:Contributions/172.69.144.152|172.69.144.152]] 10:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

the consequences of our actions /ref [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 10:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The above mentioned “error” is not an error. When she says there are 13 2s left, that uses up one 3. [[User:PedanticMan|PedanticMan]] ([[User talk:PedanticMan|talk]]) 11:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

: There's no pause, no "No wait" after "13 2s". Is she reevaluating numbers instantly realtime midsentence? Did she start the sentence planning to say one thing and instantly altered it partway through? I guess that's what Randall is going for. -- [[Special:Contributions/172.69.144.162|172.69.144.162]] 12:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::That's what I assumed, and I already included it in the explanation. But I'm not sure if the title text is consistent with that interpretation. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Title text is perhaps semi-consistent. Regardless of what was said/used beteen "ten minutes ago" and now, the statement (ten minutes ago) of "2 0s" used one zero. The statement (now) of "10 minutes ago" used another and ''technically'' used a third (but it could be considered recycled from the original statement being quoted).
:::Whichever way the counting works (and presuming that any quotable re-use principle doesn't allow just "Ns" to be requoted as "X Ns" in a way that preserves the N stock even whilst depleting Xs), we're certainly down to the stage where we can no longer say there are "0" of something, nor that the something involved is the 0s.
:::...to put it another way, a different TT might be "10 minutes ago we were down to only 2 ... oh darnit!". But that wouldn't have made itself quite so obvious (the Ns could have been 0, 1 or 2). I suppose having 3 0s ten minutes ago might only have led to the necessity of that logic being explained (then: "3 0s {0s=>2}"; now: "10 minutes {0s=>1} .. 3 0s {0s=>0}" "now?" " {0s=>0 ∴ unable to even begin to answer} "), however...
:::But, much like the TT question posed, wise use of "them”/etc might be useful in ''some'' (not-title text) circumstances. "I earlier said there were 9 9s, but now there are 7 of them. ...still 7. Yep, definitely 7 of them! (7s, on the other hand are now...)", vs. "there were 9 9s, but now there are 7 9s. 6 9s! 5 9s! <...> 1 9! <curses>" [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.114|172.69.195.114]] 12:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::I believe the title text is clear. There where still 2 like there was when she checked ten minutes ago. She can only say the sentence because she still had those two left. But after it is not possible to day there are 0 0 left. And thus the Idk. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see self-referentiality of numbers taken even further, here is a series of posts that I wrote on "self-describing numbers": https://atmos.warplight.dev/profile/1p8WCZnqqG6N3ZOsJxBgUTo/p1cNCw1OTsioTQBRk [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 12:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

the first stage of grief is denial [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 12:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
: So you saw that the Harris banner is still up too, eh? There may be no shortage of absolute numbers, but numbers of things, yeah, there are shortages. Like, chances to act to avert disaster, like weren't taken in 2016, and we got lucky ... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.92|172.68.23.92]] 17:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::Just heard on Not The Bee that Trump is planning to help the Democrats out by paying Kamala's campaign debt at a rate of $10/mention in speeches over the past 180 days. Should be plenty to pay off the $20 million.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.75|172.71.142.75]] 21:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::: [https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2024/11/05/amoebas-lorica-experimentum-finita/ When logic and proportion][https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2024/11/03/ai-elect/ have fallen sloppy dead], {{w|It_Can%27t_Happen_Here|remember}} {{w|White_Rabbit_(song)|what the dormouse said}}.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.30|172.71.142.30]] 05:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "15" uses up one 3 (3*5) and "12" uses up two 2's and one 3 (2*2*3) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.213|172.71.222.213]] 15:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:No, I think the "3s" in the first statement uses one, and the ones place of "13" referring to the number of 2s left in the second statement uses another. [[User:Laneymarie96|Laneymarie96]] ([[User talk:Laneymarie96|talk]]) 03:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

"Well? How many numbers do we have left?"
"Oh great! There's one more!"
(Yes, I know this goes against the logic of the original comic)
[[User:Turquoise Hat|Turquoise Hat]] ([[User talk:Turquoise Hat|talk]]) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we try using Roman numerals while we wait for the shortage to get fixed? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.135.53|172.69.135.53]] 04:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:We could always go back gto tally marks...wait also who says this is Miss Lenhart? {{unsigned ip|172.68.70.56|12:41, 11 November 2024}}

Seems very related to the {{w|Look-and-say sequence}}! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.170.93|172.71.170.93]] 21:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Bumpf
== "None" ==

Instead of having to say "I don't know" in the title text, one could just say "none". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.170|172.70.110.170]] 19:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:It's funnier to imagine that they forgot how to articulate "zero" as a concept. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 20:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:By that logic, they could (partially) escape the "10 minutes ago 0s" issue by saying "ten minutes ago" and not depleting certain digits. Or, as it says "numbers", depleting 10s (but neither 1s nor 0s). But you have to consider if "one" is a "1" (also "a(n)", maybe), and if you can get away with "a couple of" or dozens, scores, grosses, ton(ne)s of, a "pony" or a "grand" or even a googol/googolplex. Then one (1s--) may won(1s--?)der what really ''are'' the uses to be strictly atone(1s--?)d for? Still, I've got 33×3 problems, but the number of 3²s aint one! (1s--). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.218|172.70.160.218]] 12:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

== Google ==
So, is this comic related to the Google incident? Google seems to be suffering from money '''shortage''' after being fined in large '''number'''s. [[User:CategoryGeneral|CategoryGeneral]] ([[User talk:CategoryGeneral|talk]]) 01:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
: ...no? Big leap in logic here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.243|172.69.22.243]] 04:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

== WARNING ==

This one needs a nerd snipe warning! Anyone else get sniped with this one? [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 14:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'll let you know. I have only fifteen vowels left. No, nine. Or is it six? No, two. Grrrrr! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.135|172.70.160.135]] 15:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

2726: Methodology Trial

2024-10-02T10:09:47Z

172.70.160.135: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2726
| date = January 18, 2023
| title = Methodology Trial
| image = methodology_trial_2x.png
| imagesize = 339x459px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you think THAT'S unethical, you should see the stuff we approved via our Placebo IRB.
}}

==Explanation==

When testing the efficacy of a potential medical treatment, researchers compare subjects who received the treatment against subjects who received a {{w|placebo}}. Usually each subject does not know whether they received the treatment or placebo, and neither do the practitioners, until the end of the trial. This distinguishes the actual effects of the treatment from the effects of simply participating in a study. People who receive a placebo (or an ineffective treatment) often believe their treatment is working due to such causes as paying more attention to one's health or expecting to feel better. This misattribution of effect to a non-treatment is called the "placebo effect".

In this comic a team of researchers appears to have studied some medical treatment, using a placebo controlled test. They present their findings in which a particular subset of participants (out of at least four distinct groups) shows an apparently significant result. The graph shows that three groupings have results whose error-bars indicate that they might easily have zero (or neutral) true effects, if not negative ones. But, even at the lowest extent of the accepted uncertainty, the fourth stands out as definitively having some degree of positive effect (of whatever kind this particular graph is plotting).

However, it is revealed that the 'treatment' they were given was also a placebo. Their own study was the subject of a placebo controlled test conducted on their methodology. They were the placebo group, while a different team presumably used the exact same methodology to study the real treatment. Thus, all of this team's findings were due to the placebo effect, or else the trial size and scope allowed a purely statistical 'blip' to occur, instead of there being any real merit to the "treatment". This indicates that their methodology shouldn't be used for any real world applications. This may be a subtle dig at the recent {{w|aducanumab}} Alzheimer's drug trial controversy, where post-hoc reanalysis of one subgroup of patients revealed a surprising result when the overall trial had otherwise failed.

The particular flaw in the methodology appears to be dividing too few subjects into too many sub-groups, allowing a chance cluster of anomalous results to overly influence an apparent result. The researcher did find significance in one sub-group, even though in reality there was no signal, just noise, since it was all placebo groups. This references the same p-hacking problem as [[882: Significant]]. Only in this case the researcher themself is the subject of the real trial.

If the non-placebo study had the exact same size and design (as it should have, in such a meta-study), it would cast doubt upon whether any similar-looking findings in London were significant. Especially if they also found that the same subgroup were again exhibiting the sole significant effect, which might reveal an inbuilt flaw in the procedure. On the other hand, it could just further show how likely any particular grouping was to falsely show a result; if all groups had apparently benefited, the chances are that most of them were correct, whether or not [[2268: Further Research is Needed|further research is needed]].

Treatments ''can'' be more effective on specific subgroups of the population; for example, an anti-cancer drug might only work against specific mutations that cause cancer. But any such result needs to have appropriate statistical significance and new subjects from that subgroup should be tested to ensure the result is repeated.

The title text points out how the experiment has almost certainly violated some set of ethical standards, because one researcher offers what he believes to be genuine treatment to a large number of participants only for a third party (the offscreen speaker) to replace all his medicine with placebos, ultimately deceiving the patients. The title text implies that it was approved by a genuine Institutional Review Board (IRB), the group which decides whether a proposed experiment is ethical to perform. However they also have a "placebo IRB", presumably made up of people who have no qualifications to make such judgements well, or perhaps not made up of people at all, but simply a mechanism for generating random decisions.

However, such a methodology trial using all placebos wouldn't necessarily be unethical. In addition to using a placebo, most studies are "double blind" meaning neither the patients nor the doctors/nurses treating them know who is getting the placebo and who is not; only the researchers conducting the study know. This is so doctors/nurses cannot inadvertently let the patients know who is getting real medicine (by acting with remorse around patients they know are not being treated, or being more cheerful with patients they know who are). It is considered perfectly ethical for doctors to give patients what they believe is medicine but is not (the placebo). This is because without the double blind procedure it may not be possible to identify real medicines from ones that have no effect, and the impact of preventing real medicine from being used by millions is greater than the deceit towards the small number receiving a placebo in the experiment. By extension it could be ethical to have the researcher conduct a trial with two placebos without knowing it. For instance if the London team and the team in the comic were finding beneficial effects in new drugs that other researchers found had no effect (or finding other drugs didn't work when others had evidence they did) then it may be worth investigating if their shared methodology has the flaw demonstrated in the article. That way regulatory agencies could exclude their flawed data when they make decisions on what drugs to approve, while the two teams could shift to a better methodology and return to contributing to medical science.

==Transcript==

:[Cueball stands in front of a poster holding a pointer. The poster shows a scatter plot with four points and error bars, with one data point labeled "Subgroup" is marked with an asterisk and is placed somewhat higher up than the other three points.]
:Cueball: However, we see clear evidence that the treatment is more effective than the placebo for some subgroups.
:Off-panel voice: Thank you.
:Off-panel voice: However, we can now reveal that the '''''London''''' team was studying the real treatment. Both groups in your study got a placebo.
:Cueball: Aw, '''''maaan...'''''
:[Caption below panel:]
:Researchers hate it when you do placebo controlled trials of their methodology.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]